It is inherent in the methodological principles of science that certain fundamental questions are not posed. Physics, as it is practiced in modern times, characteristically does not really ask what matter is, biology does not ask what life is, and psychology does not ask what the soul is; instead, these terms just vaguely circumscribe the area one intends to investigate.[1]
Carl Friedrich von Weizsächer, The Unity of Nature.
I argue that the profound consideration made by Carl Friederich von Weizsächer, a German physicist and philosopher of science, can be extended to other domains of human knowledge. As an architect, I can say that this is also true for the concept of space in Architecture: space is a central topic for Architecture, which, since the late 19th century, has been considered by architects, critics, and historians ‘the art and science of space’;[2] despite that, within the field of Architecture, space is viewed as a given, rather than something to be explored; consequently, Architecture rarely questions what space is, let alone what place is or what it means to dwell. Only current environmental concerns are making architects more sensitive to such important issues – I mean questions of place and dwelling, especially – more from a practical rather than theoretical perspective.
To my knowledge, the same consideration also applies to the concepts of space and place in the Social Sciences which, despite focusing on these concepts, rarely explore their fundamental nature or ultimate source of meaning; instead, they are treated as data or terms that ‘vaguely circumscribe the area one intends to investigate’, as von Weizsächer puts it.
In my opinion, it’s a misguided attitude to leave philosophical speculation within specific disciplines solely to philosophers who venture into other fields, rather than to specialists who explore the philosophical foundations of their disciplines and related concepts (by ‘philosophical speculation’, I mean the exploration of the basic conditions of a discipline and of fundamental concepts, such as space, matter, place, time, nature, force, system, process, etc., that underlie each discipline and are shared with others).
The reason for what I consider a methodological shortcoming common to many disciplines, not just scientific ones, is elucidated by von Weizsächer himself: ‘Were we to pose these most difficult questions while at the same time practicing science, we would lose the time and energy needed to solve the solvable questions.’[3] Even if architects, like me, are not scientists in the traditional sense of the term, I can attest to this from personal experience: when I felt compelled to reflect philosophically on fundamental questions in my field, it inevitably led me to put daily practice and routines, such as competitions, projects, dealing with building codes, etc., on hold, in favour of theoretical inquiry. But, at that precise historical moment, I saw choosing theoretical inquiry as an epistemological necessity for architecture, rather than a personal preference. in this precise historical moment, I saw that choice as an epistemological necessity for architecture and not a personal choice. I believe that the methodological attitude pointed out by von Weizsächer’s is fundamentally short-sighted and an inadequate approach to the thorough study of any discipline, especially during this epoch of critical change for humanity, which is being referred to as the Anthropocene. Von Weizsächer was aware of the dangers of a shirt-sighted approach: ‘… science [as a result of that methodological approach] has progressed incredibly fast in comparison with the very slow, highly dubious process of philosophical reflection… [however] we must not deceive ourselves: the methodological procedure of science just characterized has something murderous in it if it no longer knows how questionable it is. Those questions are difficult, but they are not unimportant.’[4]
I wish that philosophical reflection and speculation on fundamental topics in each discipline would become a standard in academies, rather than being the pulse of individual research.
Notes
[1] Carl Friedrich von Weizsächer, The Unity of Nature, trans. Francis J. Zucker (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1980), 233.
[2] see the Appendix in the article On the Ambiguous Language of Space.
[3] Carl Friedrich von Weizsächer, The Unity of Nature, 233.
[4] Ibid., 233.
Works Cited
von Weizsächer, Carl Friedrich. The Unity of Nature.Translated by Francis J. Zucker. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1980.
Image Credits
Featured Image and image below: I Sette Palazzi Celesti / The Seven Heavenly Palaces, by Anselm Kiefer, Pirelli Hangar Bicocca, Milano, IT. Photography by Alessandro Calvi Rollino, CC BY-NC-SA.
